Cheyenne's RHS GOPO
1 view | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Cheyenne Colley from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget - DUE 4/25

Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget - DUE 4/25 | Cheyenne's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Here's how President Obama's budget would grow our economy and expand #OpportunityForAll → http://go.wh.gov/ctxpdE

Via Christine Thompson
Cheyenne Colley's insight:

1. OMB director Brian Deese says that the rapid rate of decline in the deficit is due to a historic reduction in the rate of health care costs. In the last two years the cost of health care has been less expensive than in the past fifty years.

2. With the presidents proposed budget for 2015 the deficits are only 1.6% of the economy; however, the baseline would put deficits at 3.4% of the economy. This is because it is based on constraining the cost of health care even more, thereby allowing the government to invest in infrastructure, education and innovation.

3. Congress has agreed to a budget, that not necessarily encompassed everything both democrats and republicans wanted, but it served as a chance to provide stability for the economy. The president is building on this concept by investing in what he thinks will provide stability in what he calls the opportunity, growth, and security initiative. This initiative entails early learning (adding 100,00 slots for children), basic research, manufacturing (national networks to create jobs), apprenticeships, and national security.

4. Ideally I see this budget as a great thing; however, as the video did not say specifically how the budget would accomplish so many things without increasing the deficit, it seems very idealized and over exaggerated what the budget can do. I think the budget is trying to hard to accomplish too many things without explaining how it will do so. 

more...
Cole Hagar's curator insight, April 28, 2014 1:40 PM

 

1. OMB Deputy Director Brian Deese says that the reason for the rapid rate of decline in the deficit is due to healthcare being nationalized and constant job creation.

2. According to Mr. Deese, the proposed budget deficits will continue to fall through 2024 due to the President’s plans and policies that he thinks will do away with waste.

3. The President is distributing the discretionary funding by empowering in things such as research projects that will ultimately benefit our economy in the long run. His initiative is already paid for taking into consideration the deficits.

4. The cons include the nationalization of healthcare which hurts almost everyone except the people without healthcare. The pro is the investment in our future investments which will ultimately help the economy in the long run.

Lauren Smith's curator insight, April 29, 2014 11:50 PM

1. The rapid rate of decline in the deficit is due to a historic reduction in the rate of growth in health care costs. 

2. The President's budget for 2015 will affect future deficits by decreasing the deficit more each year. 

3. The President's budget is trying to build on Congress's effort to compromise in the allocation of discretionary policy by bringing the democrats and republicans to work together to agree on a budget that has set limits for discretionary spending. The President's proposal shows how he'd build on this compromise process and invest in potential resources that would strengthen the economy. 

4. Pros of the proposal:

The deficit would decrease while the opportunities for Americans would increase. it promotes more efficient government management, and with the help of American Opportunity Tax Credit 11.5 million families can pay for their children to go to college.

Cons of the proposal:

It will take years to see the solid changes in the deficit to take effect in the economy and the plan will need bipartisan party support to work, and right now the majority of the government is divided. 

Tanner Roan's curator insight, April 30, 2014 7:50 PM

1. The rapid decrease of the deficit comes from the lowered cost of things like healthcare.

2. According to Mr. Deese, the deficit would begin to fall to around 1.6% as long as they keep decreasing the costs of things like healthcare.

3. The new budget is proposing to focus more on infrastructure and early education, but even then no one program is getting special attention budget wise. a component is the increase of funding for preschool education.

4. The idea of splitting the budget to help in so man ways sounds like a good plan to help support growth in the nation, but at the same time it seems to be very idealistic about what it will actually be able to accomplish. when spreading the budget out over so many fields, it can be easy to overestimate the impact it will actually have on the nation.

Rescooped by Cheyenne Colley from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders - DUE 4/11!

Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders - DUE 4/11! | Cheyenne's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it
President pushing contractor changes with executive orders, moving without help from Congress

Via Christine Thompson
Cheyenne Colley's insight:

Obama has chosen to enact an executive order regarding the pay of federal employees because he lacks the congressional support to raise wages or end gender pay disparities. This executive order shows how limited Obama and all presidents are in their executive orders because they usually lack congressional support and congress is in control of the budget. This also creates a motif for Obama's presidency of pursuing action without congressional approval. Executive orders are often criticized because they don't demonstrate a positive relationship with congress and they are seen as an overstep of presidential power especially in the case of Obama. The white house avoided making policy addressing anti gay discrimination protecting gays working for federal contractors. The white house says that such policy would be redundant because of executive orders made by Kennedy and Roosevelt. Likely the white house avoids such policy because of its controversial nature and the potential lack of support it may receive.

more...
Ivan Dominguez's curator insight, April 14, 2014 9:02 AM

Obama is enacting an executive order to raise the pay for federal employees,and so women get paid equally as men. The order needs to get approved by the senate,and Obama is lacking congressional support. The limitations are that the president is limited to feral government contacts and has to be approved by congress. The major criticism is that the executive order will affect the basic cost of a product because they have to find a way to pay those employees, and overall the result will be inflation. The White House decided to not include an executive order on gay right issues because the Obama doesn’t want to interfere if Congress may give support in new legislation because that as that may make Congress give due to redundancy

Alex Speed's curator insight, April 16, 2014 11:54 AM

1.) Obama was forced to use an executive order because he does not have the support of congress, however he can pass legislation that will have the same effect by using an executive order. However,the limit of using an executive order is that it does not effect all US citizens.

2.) The general population is skeptical of executive orders because they do not require congressional approval, which seems like a manipulation of government. This specific order faces scrutiny for its potential with lawsuits on private companies 

3.) The Obama administration has chosen not to enact orders that will effect sexual discrimination because that is congress's situation. Obama doesn't want to create sort of bias in congress that will negatively impact this legislation

Taig Lyons's curator insight, April 17, 2014 9:59 AM

 

Why has President Obama chosen to enact an executive order regarding pay of federal employees?
The president can have an impact over the part of the economy he directly controls. This move looks good and can have an impact with federal contractors in the broader economy.

What are the limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general?
Executive orders apply pretty much only to sectors the president has direct control over, like the bureaucracy and the military.

What criticism is being levied against presidents’ use of executive orders? What is the criticism of this specific executive order?
The criticism is that the order will effect very few people and that it's really just an example more than anything. There's no pressure for non-federal contractors to follow suit.

What policy area has the White House chosen not to address with executive orders? Why might the Obama administration be hesitant to address this area?
The White House has not made an executive order regarding the protection of gays and lesbians in the federal bureaucracy, because it hopes to get a law passed that would cover this topic nationwide.

Rescooped by Cheyenne Colley from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? - DUE 3/28

Video on msnbc.com: The age-old practice of politicians re-drawing Congressional districts to find friendly voters, or, gerrymandering, has allowed members of the House of Representatives from both sides of the aisle to stay in power regardless of...


Via Teresa Herrin, Kelly Grossman, Christine Thompson
Cheyenne Colley's insight:

1. The state legislatures redraw congressional districts  every ten years (following the census). The party in charge of the state legislature can redraw the lines to create safe districts, districts that align with their party in the majority. These districts are kept within a certain population to theoretically create equality among the districts.

2. Gerrymandering effects incumbency because even though in 2012 both parties only had 15% approval rate but most of their representatives, 90%, were reelected for congress. Politicians have begun to choose and place their voters instead of voters truly choosing their representatives.

3. Mathematicians have come up with a plan that would create districts only based on geography and population to decrease representatives choosing their voters. This could mean that it would be much harder for incumbents to be reelected. that would be a good thing because it gives more power to the voters; however, the longer a person is in office/the more times representatives are reelected the more policy they can enact. 

4. The electoral college results in indirect voting for the president. The popular vote does not dictate which candidate will win, the candidate must win the majority in the electoral college. Similarly, due to gerrymandering a representative may not have high approval rate, but they will still get reelected. Gerrymandering almost causes indirect reelection. 

5. Even though gerrymandering does sometimes benefit  democrats and sometimes republicans it is not justified because it takes away the voice from the minorities in the districts. It also helps to feed into the two party system because the only parties in power to gerrymander are the republicans and democrats thereby continuing their power. 

more...
Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, April 2, 2014 9:41 PM

1. The House redraws the congressional districts every 10 years on the census in an attempr to make the districts lend their support to whoever the current party majority is.

2. Gerrymandering allows incumbents to get reelected multiple times. 

3. Have a computerized, neutral program that would create districts based on geography and demography. A program such as this would make it more difficult for incumbents to get reelected.

4. Yes, there are. One party could earn more votes than another but still lose the election.

5. No because it is an unhonorable way to earn the respective benefits.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 12, 2014 2:09 PM

gerymandering is the act of redrawing a district and its has gotten its name from Albridge Garry who redrew a district in the beginning of our country in order for him to win a vote. The redrawing of the districts almost guarantees a win in voting because it allows the politicians to choose their voters. In the video, suggested possible solutions to gerrymandering would be to redraw district lines according to geography, demographics, and population density but it would cause a disruption in the current system and would make it very difficult for a representative to be reelected to a district that doesn't have the same advantages. Gerrymandering can be compared to the electoral college because these systems don't work in the favor of the public, or the majority vote because with the representatives picking the districts containing people they know will vote for them along with the electoral college being able to override the public vote, it has caused question in the democratic system of the United States.

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 9:47 PM

The term gerrymandering comes from an 1810 law that was created by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, which repositioned and defined congressional districts based on population changes. After the law was passed, newspaper articles came out with pictures of the re-drawn districts in concerning shapes, such as a salamander. They linked the two words “salamander” and “Gerry” and called it gerrymandering. As time has gone on, gerrymandering has been manipulated by both the Republican and Democratic parties by them re-drawing districts specifically to change the possible outcome of their “political cartoon” if you will. House seats are being re-apportioned every presidential election year. The video suggested that these means of politics have made it so that “the politicians are choosing their voters, rather than the voters choosing their politicians”. This is causing major distrust in candidates and decrease in voter participation. Gerrymandering has been beneficial to incumbents because they change their districts to work in favor of their election. Both the Electoral College and gerrymandering can be seen as unfair or corrupt government practices because they can sometimes both not accurately depict the peoples' votes by changing their districts. With the Electoral College, they could win a majority of the electoral votes, but not the majority vote. With gerrymandering, a politician would be elected just because of the re-drawn, manipulated districts, which is ridiculous. 

Rescooped by Cheyenne Colley from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2016 presidential ratings update: Nothing but questions on the Republican side

Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2016 presidential ratings update: Nothing but questions on the Republican side | Cheyenne's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it

Via Christine Thompson
Cheyenne Colley's insight:

1. It seems to me that in 2016 the media is looking for a candidate that is strong in its beliefs across the board. O n both the table for Republicans and for Democrats the main advantage of prospect candidates is that they had strong liberal or strong conservative pasts. 

2. There was minimal focus on the issues (platform) of the candidates. Most information given about the candidates was concerning past experience and their appeal to the public.

3.  The "permanent presidential campaign" is in regards to the fact that a person must start years in advance to ensure that a candidate can withstand public scrutiny and lives up to what the people want. A potential candidate must be vetted to ensure that nothing in his past can be used against him in future campaigns and offices. Also a candidate must show their ability to maintain office and inform the public about their character and intentions.

4. I see being identified as an early leader in the presidential race as both an advantage and disadvantage. It is an advantage because it allows the early leader to inform the public of its platforms and advantages as a candidate. However it can be a disadvantage because the vetting process for the candidate may not be fully completed and something in the candidates past might be revealed before such factors are ready to be handled. 

more...
Sean Kelly's curator insight, March 6, 2014 10:19 PM

1. The media is, overall, looking for a candidate that is somehow associated with government, and not associated with the government at large. The candidate needs connections, but not popular connections - they need to have a name of themselves without latching on to anyone elses name. They also are looking for a good personality, and an appeal to both sides of the political parties. This is true for Democrats and Repbulicans, except for tiny details - mainly Democrats need to have a steady, but not heavy, tone of liberalism while the Repbulicans need to tone down their conservatism.

2. Sabato does not mention party platforms for the candidates, except with Brian Schweitzer when his conseravtism on guns and the environment are listed as disadvantages.

3. the "permanent presidential campaign" refers to the tendency of government officials to always be vying for the presidential slot in the closest election year. There is always consideration for who would be the next president.

4. I would say it would be a disadvantage to be labeled as an early leader - people like the idea of an underdog story, of someone who has taken a rise to power. To be labeled as an early leader would be to be put as an "obvious choice," and so would be to be put in a bad light with the public as they feel their opinion is being downtrodded by that specific candidate.

Christine Thompson's comment, March 18, 2014 4:10 PM
I noticed that some people have the same/very similar wording on the "permanent presidency" question. Please do not "borrow" another student's work... and please be careful of plagiarism.
Lauren Smith's curator insight, March 19, 2014 6:44 AM

1. The media is looking for someone who is nationally known and has political experience, supported by some poplitical group, and they must be dynamic in speeches and campains. In addition, the canditate should have beliefs that are well alligned with their political party and have fundraising resources.

2. Sabato is focused more on the basic qualities of the politicians and has pointed out positive and negitive aspects for each potential candidate. He is not focused on each potential candidate's entire political platform yet because the point of his article is to introduce the candidates as potential, not certain, runners.

3. When Sabato refers to  the "permanent presidential campaign" he is refering to the presidential campaign in 2016 where the candidates for each party are surely running for president. These are the people that have decided to run and are no longer potential candidates.

4. I do not think there is an advantage in being identified as an early leader in the presidential race because the media can draw negitive attention to the candidate before they can defend or explain themselves. It doesn't matter who is the leader at the beginning of the race, it only matters who is the leader at the end of it. Therefore, it would be pointless to take any lead before the presidential race has begun because no one cares about that yet.

Rescooped by Cheyenne Colley from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red - DUE 2/20

Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red - DUE 2/20 | Cheyenne's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Texas remains a Republican-leaning state because its white residents are becoming increasingly Republican and its large Hispanic population, though solidly Democratic, is less so than Hispanics nationally.

Via Christine Thompson
Cheyenne Colley's insight:

1. The Hispanic population is decibel democratic and with the second largest population of Hispanics in any state, Texas might see a party realignment. This is related to the concept of majority minority because as the majority white group becomes a minority, the democratic Hispanics may be able to realign politics in Texas.

2. Texas is a primarily Republican party especially among the minority; however, the Hispanic minority mostly votes democratic. Hispanics in Texas are still less likely than Hispanics in other states to vote democratic.

3. Political participation among adult Hispanics is very low when compared to majorities. While most other states have a 50% participation among Hispanics, Texas only has a 47%. When 47% political participations among Hispanics is compared to the 82% participation of whites and 77% among blacks the Hispanics population is extreme misrepresented. This means that political realignment is not likely.

4. There is a low sampling error in this poll because 178528 people were random sampled with telephone interviews of adults 18 years and older from all 50 states and dc were interviewed. 50% of phones called were landlines and 50% were cell phones chosen by a random-digit-dial. Also the poll had demographic weight based on the most recent population survey among those in the united states 18 years and older.

more...
Holland Coleman's curator insight, February 20, 2014 11:28 PM

1. Democrats are hopeful of a party realignment in Texas because of the state's growing Hispanic population--Hispanics are consistently left-leaning--which represents an influx of blue voters that could tip the scales of the state. Soon, the state's white cititzens will make up less than half of the population, and the state will have a minority majority.

 

2. The party identification trend in Texas is that any given demographic will be more right-leaning than nationally. For instance, even though Hispanics in Texas still lean left, the margin by which Hispanic blue voters outweigh Hispanic red voters is much smaller. 

 

3. Despite any meteoric rise in Texas' Hispanic population, this demographic is unlikely to exercise its newfound political clout because Hispanic voters are much less likely to participate in elections than other demographics. The real challenge for Democrats therefore is not to win over the Hispanic population--they already lean left--but to get them to register and vote.

 

4. The study was a random survey conducted by telephone. Respondents were found using random-dialing methods in an even geographical spread. 50% of respondents were reached by landline, and the other 50% of respondents were reached by cell phone, to control for demographic trends regarding phone use. 

Lauren Smith's curator insight, February 21, 2014 12:22 AM

1. Democrats are hopeful for a party realignment in Texas because Texas is predominantly a Republican state, yet this poll suggests that the democrats are pulling more weight in Texas than before. If Texas were to become a more democratic state, then the Democrats would have a larger advantage in the number of voters and influence. The population of Hispanics in Texas is increasing in Texas and, along with African Americans in the state, are voting more democratic. However, the majority of Texans are white and vote republican. This shows that the minority majority struggle that the minorities are beginning to surpass the number of majority people in Texas. 

2. The trends in party identification in Texas are that the white Texans vote mostly republican, while the minorities vote more democratic. The Hispanic Texans were mostly republican in 2008 during the time of Obama's election, but now they have tended to follow the national trend to vote more democratic.  

3. Gallup suggests that the current situation of small percentages of Hispanic adult registered voters will unlikely cause a realignment of Texas to a democratic state. This is related to political participation in that there is a low percentage of Hispanic Texans who are actually registered to vote. This causes the Hispanic democrats to be poorly represented in the state.  Therefore the republicans who vote will keep Texas a more republican state.

4. Steps that were taken by Gallup to reduce sampling error were to conduct recent telephone interviews (in Spanish as well if needed to communicate to the respondent) with a random sample that included over 178,000 adults in all 50 states and in D.C., the interviews were 50% on cell phones and 50% on land lines, and there were weighted samples based on unequal selection probability and national demographics. 

Jordan Nguyen's curator insight, February 23, 2014 5:04 PM

1. If Texas has a party realignment it could be a huge change to the republican-democrat ratio. Texas is the largest republican majority state.  The minority Hispanic population as a cumulative has become the larger majority. The population is under the democratic influence more than anything else. 

2. The larger white majority will identify republican. The rest of the population will identify as democratic. 

3. Even though the minority is slowly becoming a majority the minority Hispanic population does not yet build the larger portion of population.The smaller Minority groups that makeup a majority combined are least likely to vote as well. This hinders the democratic party because there is no political participation.

4. There are several different groups looked at and not a single controlled specific type targeted, but the idea that the poll only targets people in Texas and divides them by race is not helping low sampling error. 

Rescooped by Cheyenne Colley from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step - DUE 4/18!

Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step - DUE 4/18! | Cheyenne's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it

IChief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. may work slowly, but he has a long-term strategy for putting his mark on the Supreme Court.


Via Christine Thompson
Cheyenne Colley's insight:

1. In Roberts' court conservative decisions have been highly favored because the court is in majority conservative. Robert ruled to maintain affirmative action and refused to find something in the constitution that supports same sex marriage.

2. A precedent is when a court decides on a case and that decision serves as a basis for other court cases, Roberts has been able to persuade the more liberal justices to vote conservatively, meaning that he helps to maintain previous decisions rather than change them.

3. The Obama administration has a poor overall record with the court because their liberal views don't mesh with the conservative views of the court. Obama might gain success by pointing out the limitations of current legislation and by exaggerating the effects of the legislation he supports.

4. Justice Kennedy is considered to be the swing vote on the court because he doesn't always vote conservative or liberal. 

5. Personally I do not believe there to be an overwhelming bias. There were things written about the conservative view point that uplifted it and others that bashed on its inability for change. This was also prevalent for liberal side. There might slightly be a biased towards the conservative view because it ends with the opinion of Roberts leaving that to be the thing en-grained in the reader's head. 

more...
Anna Fisher's curator insight, April 21, 2014 11:56 PM

1. The opposite party has been favored in Robert's court conditions. "He took pains to note that eight members of the court, including its four liberals, had already agreed that “things have changed in the South” and that the voting law seemed at odds with principles of federalism and “equal sovereignty” among the states."

2. "In the last term, the court issued 73 signed decisions in argued cases, in line with recent terms and about half the number the court routinely issued two decades ago. Justice Kennedy was in the majority 83 percent of the time in divided cases, trailed by Chief Justice Roberts at 73 percent. Justice Scalia brought up the rear, at 58 percent." So, Chief Robert's precedent would be Justice Kennedy and the majority does not typically rule in Robert's court.

3. “Obama’s poor overall record,” Professor Winkler added, “is largely due to philosophical differences with the court’s conservative majority.” The way this could be fixed is through compromise in parties, maybe not being too liberal and considering some of the conservative ideas. 

4. Justice Salina is considered the swing vote. Salina said that the majority needs to respect the President and the views of this. People still needs the power to govern themselves.

5. No, this article is factual and simply allows the reader to make their own opinion on the matter. 

Stephanie Shirley's curator insight, April 23, 2014 12:35 AM

1.The Roberts Court has a very conservative record that has been beneficial for business interests and detrimental to consumers and employees. They  cut back on class action lawsuits and favored arbitration. 

2. Precedent is making a decision based on prior decisions. In business cases, the court largely reaffirmed its prior decisions.
3. Obama's poor record is due to philosophical differences with the Supreme Court Justices. One strategy that the President could pursue to see greater success in the Court would be to compromise on issues and try to get legislation passed that is more bipartisan. 4. Justice Kennedy is considered the "swing vote" on the court because in some cases he votes liberal and in some he votes conservative. There are four liberals and four conservatives on the Court. 5. Yes, because it describes Chief Justice Roberts and his accomplishments in a positive way. "His patient and methodical approach has allowed him to establish a robustly conservative record."  
Ivan Dominguez's curator insight, April 24, 2014 12:41 AM

Roberts strongly supports conservative parties and decisions; “seven justices, including two liberals, agreed to sign an opinion that over time could restrict race-conscious admissions plans at colleges and universities.” This court has been the most pro-business in the past few years. A precedent is citing a previous case in order to successfully win a similar one. And Roberts court looks at all precedents set before any case is tried. The Obama administration has an overall poor record in defending their interests in the Supreme Court because the philosophical ideal differences within the administrations is very high. Justice Anthony Kennedy is most often the swing vote of the court. He typically goes back and forth between the conservatives and liberals. This article seems biased in favor of liberal stand points, but also gives credit to the Chief Justice  Roberts.

Rescooped by Cheyenne Colley from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General | Cheyenne's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The White House is considering putting off a Senate vote on Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, who has come under criticism from the National Rifle Association, or withdrawing the nomination altogether.

Via Christine Thompson
Cheyenne Colley's insight:

1. The NRA has raised such a hail storm about this nominee for the surgeon general because the nominee plans to create stronger gun control laws, limit on the amount of ammo available, and require gun education courses. The NRA is expressing its power by refusing to support democratic candidates from conservative states. 

2.  For the senators reelection is at stake especially in conservative states because most of their constituents are very angry with the gun control laws presented by nomination for surgeon general.

3. The president nominates the surgeon general, then him and the white house work together to present the nominee in such a way as to get him confirmed by their party who is in the majority.

4. Because past nominations have stopped working they have come with a strategy to get this nomination to pass. That strategy includes working with Democratic leaders to gain more support, delaying a vote until after the midterm elections, or allowing Dr. Murthy to withdraw.

more...
Sam Johnson's curator insight, April 7, 2014 9:59 AM

The NRA is exercising it's influence by basicaly telling democratic Senators in Conservative States if you support Obama's nomination, you will loose our support. The loss of the NRA's support could keep those democrats from being reelected. The White House could offer a compromise to get Murthy approved. For example they could offer to consider a ballanced budget bill in exchange for supporting Murthy.

Jordan Nguyen's curator insight, April 8, 2014 1:24 AM

1. The NRA is using it's influence in order to persuade the senators to disapprove of the appointment made by President Obama. With ties between the senate democrats and the White House already wearing thin, and the majority of the Democratic senators up for election, the senators are put in a tough situation.The nominee 'Dr. Murthy, who has voiced support for various gun control measures like an assault weapons ban, mandatory safety training and ammunition sales limits" which is upsetting to the NRA.

2. The senators have reached the beginning of the midterm election season and need to get reelected in order to climb to greater power. The NRA having so much influence to certain politics will have a major affect of campaigners who have already decided to approve of the appointment of Dr. Murthy. 

3. The President is the individual who nominates whomever to get appointed by the senate. Through confirmation the President may have a  "guestimate" at who will approve the appointment. 

4. The White House with its' influence may try to use that as bargain in rebuttal to the NRA which is threatening the Senators.  Dr. Murthy will probably be appointed but the completion of the official appointment itself will have to wait until after midterm elections. 

Zachary Smart's curator insight, April 8, 2014 11:52 PM

1.An interest group like the NRA is using its power to influence the appointment of the Attorney General because he opposes guns, therefor he is for gun regulation.

2. Senators who vote for Murphy are more likely to not be reelected in the states where the NRA holds power. This makes it to where their approval rating drops, and to where their constituents are likely to vote against them.

3. The White House/President has the ability to delay an appointment or remove the candidate from the process entirely. The Senate must approve/vote for the appointee, so the president and the senate have a tight relationship.

4. The president must have more support from the democratic senators over republicans if he is to have his appointment approved. The president recently found out that he has to make a compromise between both parties of the house.

Scooped by Cheyenne Colley
Scoop.it!

Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained - Christina Greer - YouTube

View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/does-your-vote-count-the-electoral-college-explained-christina-greer You vote, but then what? Discover how your i...
Cheyenne Colley's insight:

1. The constitutional basis for the electoral college is that the founders did not believe the average person would be able to make an educated decision in regards to the election because of the inability for information to spread fast and widely. However, the founders also did not wish to give the full power of electing a president over to the federal government.

2. The common strategy used to get 270 electoral votes is to focus on gaining the votes of largely populated states. Safe states are states that can be counted on to vote for one party or another. Swing states are states that jump back and forth on which party they vote for. These states effect which states the candidate plans to focus on. 

3. If no candidate receives 270 electoral votes then it is up to the House of Representatives to choose a president.

4. The 2000 election raised a lot of critique over the electoral college because while Al Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college and also the presidency. Critiques say the electoral college does not always reflect the will of the people and leaves small states in the dust. 

5. I believe in theory the electoral college is a good idea, I don't believe every person is educated enough on the elections to only rely on popular vote to decide the president. I do, however, believe that smaller states underrepresented in the electoral college and safe states misrepresent the public. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Cheyenne Colley from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001 - DUE 2/24!

Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001 - DUE 2/24! | Cheyenne's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it
More Americans today are satisfied with where the nation stands on acceptance of gays and lesbians, federal taxes, and healthcare availability than were satisfied in 2001. But Americans' satisfaction with the economy has declined.

Via Christine Thompson
Cheyenne Colley's insight:

1. Gallup chose this thirteen year comparison because the opinions reflected in the 2001help to contrast the opinions of Americans post 9/11. The wars with Afghanistan could be a cause of American's increasing dissatisfaction with the nation's economy and world affairs. Most likely there are other factors outside of 9/11 that have shaped Americans ideas about the economy and world affairs, such as the affordable care act.

2. The results in the chart comparing Democratic and Republican satisfaction do coincide with my expectations resulting from the books depiction of liberalism and conservatism. Republicans seemed least satisfied with the strength of the government and its army, they wish to see an increase in power. The Democrats however were satisfied with the minimal military power and increased government involvement in social issues.  

3. Republicans would support a better plan that would increase the affordability of available health care, increased US involvement in world affairs, and a stronger military. Democrats would support a continence of a little military involvement, government involvement in social issues, and increasing the quality of the environment.

4. This has a relatively small sampling error so for the most part I believe the results of the poll; however with the sampling error I must take into account that the ideas expressed in this poll can be skewed.

more...
Anna Fisher's curator insight, February 24, 2014 1:41 PM

1. The historical events do change the opinions of the people, specifically 9/11, because it makes people lose trust in the government. The people are much less satisfied with the world affairs.

2. They do coincide with my expectations, because liberal/conservative usually go with republican and democratic ideas. Liberals believe that the state shouldn't play such a big role, while conservative believes in more strict law.

3. Republicans believe that the environment is doing pretty well, while the Democrats disagree. Democrats think that health care is doing great, while Republicans differ. The key points that Republicans and Democrats believe in, they disagree on.

4. This is the margin of error, so the people interviewed are fairly confident in their answer. Smaller the margin of error, the more reliable the poll. 

Sean Kelly's curator insight, February 24, 2014 11:34 PM

1. The terror attacks and the dot-com boom changes do explain the changes in public opinion because the relative feelings of safety and economic immunity, i.e. no one will mess with the US, are gone.

2. These results do coincide because the Democrats liberal views fit in with the government doing more to intervene with certain policies, and the conservative Republican views fit into the idea of Conservatives limiting government controls across all fronts, and their "return to the good times" attitude.

3. The Democrats would be more likely to support gun control and penal system reform, while the Republicans would enjoy a cut on the higher income bracket taxes and the loss of gun control laws.

4. The 4% error potential means that the sampling is most likely within 4% of the general popluations overall view. This means the data is not exactly precise, but does give a good ball park idea to work in for the numbers.

Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, March 3, 2014 4:32 PM

1. For the most part, yes, due to the war in the Middle East, however, not all social factors would be.

 

2. Yes. Democrats are more satisfied with liberal issues, and Republican favor conservative issues.

 

3. Democrats would probably push for more concern for global warming and tighter gun laws, as democrats are generally liberal. Republicans would probably push for less government intervention, as republicans are generally conservative.

 

4. The results could be shifted +/- 4%, which is relatively small. It puts into mind the thought that much of our information in corrupt.